RAGHUNATH DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the writ petition, the grandfather of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the great -grandfather of petitioner No. 3 Baldev owned agricultural lands in Village - -Aton. Baldev died in S.Y. 1980, and after his death, his property devolved on his two sons Kanhaiyalal and Janki Lal. Kanhaiyalal expired some time in 1952, and after his death, his property devolved on his two sons, petitioner No. 1 Raghunath das and one Radha Kishan, and the lands which had devolved on the death of Baldev, came in the Joint -Khatedari of petitioner No. 1 and his brother Radha Kishan and their uncle, Jankilal, in equal share. On 7th July, 1954, petitioner No. 1 and his brother, Radha Kishan; and petitioner No. 2 and his brother Mohan Lal and their father, Janki Lal applied for mutation alleging that they were in possession in the lands of their share separately, and they prayed that the lands so possessed by them, should be entered separately in their Khata. The utation was attested by the Tehsildar - Atru, on 7th July, 1954, in accor -. bee with the compromise of the parties; and 165 Bighas and 18 Biswas of and was ordered.to be recorded in the name of Janki Lal. whereas 164 Bighas the name of petitioner No. 1 Raghunath Das; 165 Bighas and 14 Biswas in the name of petitioner No. 1's brother Radha Kishan; 167 Bighas and 15 swas in the name of petitioner No. 2 Mangi Lal: and 163 Bighas and 7 Biswas of land was ordered to be recorded in the 'name of petitioner N0. 2's brother Mohan Lal. A certified copy of the mutation -order has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure -1. After the Ceiling Act came into race, petitioners Nos 1 and 2 and his brother Mohan Lal submitted their elarations under rule 9 of the Ceiling Rules, 1963. Then, the SDO Chhabra sued notices under Rule 14 of the said rules to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. But, decision was taken till the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural oldings Act, 1973 was promulgated. Thereafter, the whole file was consigned record and proceedings were.revived again on 11th March, 1974, and the DO, Chhabra decided the ceiling -case by his order dated 4th June, 1974. n appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, 'the RAA) remanded he case back to the SDO, with the direction that the other co -tenants should e given a chance of hearing and the case should be decided afresh in accor - acne with Rule 21 of the Ceiling Rules. After the remand, notices were given co -tenants, namely, Radha Kishan and Mohan Lal. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 fed their reply before the SDO, Chhabra, and conteded that the lands held petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were ancestral property. According to petitionerno.l, his sons Bhuendra Kumar and Narendra Kumar were also his co - arers;and according to petitioner No. 2, his sons Shiv Kumar, Virendra umar, Yogendra Kumar, Santosh Kumar and Usha Kumar were also his b -sharers. It was further submitted that a partition had taken place between on -petitioner No. 2 and his sons vide a partition -decree, passed by the assistant Collector, Chhabra, on 2nd June, 1970. The SDO decided the ling -case vide his order dated 24th/26th April, 1976. An appeal was then peferred before the RAA, which also dismissed the said appeal by its order ted 16th June. 1976. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision petition are the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. During the pendency of said revision petition, the petitioners submitted an application under order 41 Rule 27, CPC, along with certain documents, praying that they be rought on record. The Board of Revenue dismissed that application and d that the learned Counsel for the petitioners was not able to challenge the order of the RAA on merits without bringing those documents on record. It against that order of the Board of Revenue that the present writ petition as been filed.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before us that on according to the judgment of the learned SDO and the documents on record, it is obvious that the lands were ancestral, but the RAA has wrongly observed that the lands have not been proved to be anscejtral. They submit That a bare look to mutation No. 1380 would show that the property was Scestral and it was by inadvertence and mistake that the document was not fought on record either before the SDO or the RAA, and that the poof petitioners should not suffer for the negligence or inadvertence of their vocate for bringing the document on record.

(3.) THE writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 28th March, 1977 and also that of the RAA dated 16th June, 1976, are hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the RAA, Kota, for its disposal afresh. The parties are left to bear their own costs.